“This week Apple confined developers to a specific set of tools (XCode),” Steve Cheney blogs for steve’s blog. “A lot of people think this is to kill Adobe Flash. Sure, that is a tactical reason, but there are much broader strategic reasons. By telling developers to move to XCode tools, Apple is setting the stage to potentially switch architectures.“
“History often repeats itself: In 2003, Apple advised developers to switch to XCode tools,” Cheney writes. “This was not a coincidental move—2 years later Apple moved to Intel across its entire Mac line. Developers who complied could simply press a button and applications would run natively (full performance) on new Intel Macs.”
“Now consider this – Apple may have already switched without people knowing. Here’s an anecdote – the innards of Apple’s A4 (powers the iPad) have been speculated ad nauseum by experts, but the reality is no one knows what’s actually inside. This week, there was very surprising analysis that the A4’s die size far exceeds what it ‘should’ be (single core ARM Cortex A8 with a 64 bit memory bus and GPU).
“This analysis is not yet mainstream, but will add tremendous fuel to the fire that perhaps the A4 is NOT an ARM architecture,” Cheney writes. “In fact, it’s highly possible that the A4 is a dual core Power Architecture, which is what the PA Semi team worked with, prior to Apple buying them in 2007.”
“If this is indeed the case, then iPhone OS 4.0 would bring incredible speed improvements to the iPad, since it would no longer run applications on an ARM processor emulator,” Cheney writes. “Can you imagine if OS 4.0 improved the iPad’s speed by 50% on day 1? Apple would be heralded as a software God. But in order for these speed improvements to be realized, apps would need to be written in objective C—which is exactly what Apple is now telling developers to do.”
Cheney writes, “We will likely find out what’s really inside the A4 soon. But one thing is already clear: Apple is sowing the groundwork to make architecture changes seamless—developers will only need to flip a switch to give their apps blazing, native performance… I find it fascinating that Apple has been so good at diverting attention to the Flash argument, that people don’t see the true genius behind Steve Jobs’ vision…”
Full article – recommended – here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Jack” and “jax44” for the heads up.]
@ SouthRoad–
I’m not saying you’re wrong, because I wouldn’t presume to know (such as you have), but have you forgotten about the Classic layer from the introduction of OSX? How about Rosetta?
Never say never.
@ lan
“Power Architecture” is not the same as “PowerPC.” Power Architecture is the overarching category that includes PowerPC, along with other microprocessors such as IBM’s POWER (used in their servers) and Cell used in Sony’s PlayStation. I think even Microsoft’s Xbox uses microprocessors in this category.
So whatever the A4 really is, it is not “PowerPC.” But it will be quite interesting, if there is a “family” relationship.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
<<Terri
And we are suppose to trust Steve Jobs after he lied to everyone saying that the first gen iPhone was not able to run multitask and now people have proved him otherwise? LMAO…
Good One Steve. Keep it for the Fanboys will ya!>>
Terri, nowhere has Steve ever said the original iPhone could not multitask, because it DOES multitask its core apps, just not 3rd-party apps. Apple could allow 3rd-party app multitasking, but it would run poorly, due to the limited ram, with lots of app crashing, etc. If you know anything about Apple, which it appears not, you’d know, USABILITY is their key design element. If something doesn’t run quickly or smoothly, they don’t sell it, as that would only annoy the customer. Those customers who want to jailbreak their iPhones and deal with the security and usability issues are generally geek enough to take care of their own problems. Most users, who aren’t geek enough are better off not having those options. Can you imagine the lines at the Genius Bar if they had to fix all the problems caused by jailbreaking by non-geek users?
@ Terri–
Steve never said pre-3GS models could not multitask.
He said they would not.
There is a difference.
They are supporting those who are still under contract.
Those who are not can upgrade to new equipment.
If A4 was a dual core Power Architecture the xray done on the processor would have shown it. The Xray showed that A4 had only single core.
@ TheConfuzed1
> They are supporting those who are still under contract.
I know what you are saying in your post, but your statement above is certainly not accurate regarding third-party multi-tasking support in iPhone OS 4.0. The current $99 iPhone, still being sold “as new” right now, is the older design iPhone 3G (not 3GS). iPhone OS 4.0 does support this model, but not for the third-party multi–tasking feature.
However, there is nothing wrong with that because Apple did not advertise third-party multi-tasking as a feature of any iPhone model currently being sold (until last week for the 3GS model).
The iPad is pretty snappy as it is. Is that with a single-core processor? Dual core? Running an emulator? Native mode? Doesn’t really matter … there is No Discernible Lag. So, what would be the benefit of going from only using an emulator is a single core to running native code in a dual core? 1/4 of that negligible lag!
@ ken1w–
You’re assuming they will continue to sell the 3G.
Don’t you think it’s reasonable to suppose the 3GS will fill that slot when the next iPhone is released alongside iPhone OS 4.0?
iPad has been in development for many years…so is all Apple forward moving strategy.
There is always a method to Apples madness.
I cant believe what people like to believe even if it is absolutely nonsense.
Apple have a installed base of 80 million ARM devices to keep compatible with it, they have nearly 200.000 apps in store compiled for ARM CPUs and there is absolutely no reason tot try a comeback on POWER architecture in the mobile space. Just look at INTEL and their billion dollar developing budget what is the result of trying to transform a desktop CPU architecture in a mobile CPU. They are still far behind ARM in battery life and ARM offers huge steps in performance improvement with the new Cortex A9 multicore design.
If you need more performance, add more Cores. If Apple want to make the most power efficient CPU with highest performance possible for devices in the size of the iPad, take a ARM Cortex A9 QuadCore design.
This would be much easier and billions cheaper than develop a PowerPC design from scratch and then transform half of the platform to the new architecture and try to keep compatibility to the installed base.
The idea of a PowerPC design is so ridiculous that some people stop thinking at all.
@ken1w
I realize that the Power architecture is not the same as the Power PC, but power us usually the name used for IBMs big iron chips Power 4, Power 5b and so on. If apple is using a Power chip it is probably closer to a Power PC than a “Power” chip. There is a Power PC in the Xbox and the Wii. The chip in the PlayStation 3 is a Cell chip, it has one Power core and 8 cells, seven of which are functional.
It is disappointing that IBM has lost interest in the cell because its use of multiple small cells that are also capable of graphics processing would be ideal for these kinds of mobile devices.
Calm down mactards it’s only a theory at the moment. It would be cool if it turns out to be true.
I wonder what would happen if they tried to switch the entire Macbook, iMac and Mac Pro architectures away from intel to something designed by PA Semi.
@Olternaut
So you like the idea, to buy an update for all of your applications, or to lose performance in some sort of emulation mode. And no more boot camp fall back for Windows only software – oh – this sounds really cool but not very clever!!
I think Apple is very happy that the long transition time from 2001 to 2010 come to an end and they can concentrate on new features and not on basic platform changes.
@peter.s.
It makes perfectly sense indeed..
ARM architecture is RISC as well as POWER architecture too.
Using Apple’s compilers does not represent much effort to port from ARM to POWER architectures.
Even that IBM’s Power Processors were very power hungry, P.A. SEMI were not. Also, we are not talking about the FULL CHIP inside the iPad, we are talking about the CORE of the processor, remember that much of the power (in terms of energy and not architecture) came from the graphics and the bus. IBM-SONY-TOSHIBA’s CELL processor has 8 cores of the POWER chip but does not consume 8 times the power energy of the IBM 970 MP Chip.
So, using the P.A. SEMI core, whit the ARM bus and graphics, programing using Xcode, makes perfectly sense.
“So you like the idea, to buy an update for all of your applications, or to lose performance in some sort of emulation mode.”
No, I think what’s being said is that the iPad is CURRENTLY running in emulation mode. If they are correct once the iPad is updated to iPhone OS4 The chip will come out of hiding and will run in native mode; ……. really, really, fast!
This may or may not be true, but it is interesting!
Not happening.
The article above, cites another series of posts, which I linked in yesterday’s story about a PA Soc being used instead of an ARM8. The above author clearly is no authority, but the original source does seem to know something about the process.
Having said that, emulation does not seem totally ridiculous. Just think about it, Apple has emulated PowerPC when it switched to Intel. Apple has emulated ARM on Intel chips, when it created the iPhone SDK. Why couldn’t they emulate ARM on Power architected chips? It sounds like the 3rd side of a triangle.
@ TheConfuzed1
You said
> They are supporting those who are still under contract.
Obviously, anyone who buys a new $99 iPhone 3G right now will be “under contract” when the iPhone OS 4.0 rolls out, whether that model continues to be sold as new or not. Obviously, it is likely to be cancelled, replaced by a model that supports iPhone OS 4.0 completely, not partially, while they are “under contract.”
@ ken1w–
You’re right. My bad.
Okay, so they are supporting those currently under contract.
And they are fully supporting all current hardware.
3G units will get iPhone OS 4.0, but not multitasking.
Do you like that better?
Olternaut said, “it’s only a theory at the moment. It would be cool if it turns out to be true. I wonder what would happen if they tried to switch the entire Macbook, iMac and Mac Pro architectures away from intel to something designed by PA Semi.”
I have a strong suspicion that may happen. I welcome it. The Intel processors have probably hit a major roadblock according to Apple.
That actually make sense, and makes Apple sound far less like a jerk. Still, last time they just RECOMMENDED Xcode, this time they are requiring it…that’s quite a difference.
@ NCIceman–
They didn’t have the luxury of the app approval process before iPhone, so it was never an option for them to make any kind of requirement at all, otherwise they may have.
@ ken1w–
Actually that is exactly my argument. Yes using Rosetta you can run using two different architectures but you pay a tremendous performance penalty. The high speed of the Intel makes of for the lose but even then, Rosetta PowerPC programs are still a bit sluggish on an Intel. That is why Rosetta has lived it’s useful life as a stop gap measure. If the A4 were running Rosetta, first we wouldn’t see a 10 hour battery life, as the emulation draws a lot of performance drain, and second, the programs are not sluggish at all which implies it is not running Rosetta nor any other emulation.
…and I certainly don’t believe that the A4 is sooo fast that it can run iPhone apps in emulation mode, blast through the overhead of emulation and still achieve a 10 hour battery life.
I don’t believe that at all. Time will prove that the A4 is not a power architecture, and I will continue to ridicule that article. It is flat out wrong, and time will prove me right.
ifixit and ChipWorks already analyzed the processor. This should settle the issue, though I don’t have that expertise.
Anyone else?
I don’t know if this chip rumor is true or not. I only wish it were true just in order to shut up the bitching and whining developers who have to get extremely vocal whenever Apple asks them to do something that doesn’t please them. Even if a key executive tried to sit down and explain it to them, they’d swear the executive was lying through his teeth and only trying to bust the developer’s humps. If Apple is trying to develop long-term plans for the platform, then maybe things just have to change whether outsiders like it or not. I’m not saying it’s fair to developers at all. I suppose a developer either has to have faith in the iPhone platform or not.
If those developers are that upset, they should just jump over to Android right away. I’m sure Google is always looking for cookie cutter developers that want to develop for six different mobile platforms at once. If developers feel they can make more money from being an Android developer with less hassle, then why should they even bother to bitch and moan about Apple’s arbitrary decisions.